It's a scientific fact -- you won't go very far at all without enough NAD(+)'s.
It's a scientific fact -- you won't go very far at all without enough NAD(+)'s.
A friend emailed me the site since my training was being discussed. I read most of it and found it interesting.
Let me say a few things that might give you more insight into what was going on at the time.
first of all, one person stated that I might not have won the race if it would have been run over. I would agree with that and it is true with every race. However I thought I was able to run about 13:22 when I went to Tokyo and I think the finish shows I wasn't very tired with a lap to go. No one can run 38.7 for the last 300 if his legs are tired. On all weather that would have been a second and a half faster considering the muddy track and the cinders.
I was doing between 100 and 110 miles a week when I didn't have a race. Since I had flat feet I was more injury prone and being an asthmatic gave me problems when I trained or raced in a high pollution or pollen area. We did not have any medicines that were useful at the time and when I ran races under thoe conditions I felt listless. (that happens when histamines build up in the body) I was not bothered in California as long as the wind was blowing of the ocean or in Tokyo.
One of the posters commented that I had not lost a race and that was true at the mile, (Beat Grelle and Weisenger)
Two miles and 3 (5K) during the outdoor season. Also beat Clark the two times I raced him indoors and Baillie in the 5K at Compton when I ran 13:38 with a :54 finish. Again with the sprint starting at the 300 to go.
Concerning the Bill Dellinger statement, he was discussing the race with Prefontaine after Prefontaine was stating that Norpoth could only beat him by out-kicking him. I think Bill was telling him that he had not run a very smart race in Munich.
Now that brings up the point why I ran the race the way I did. First of all I thought only Jazy could match my finish but I thought I was in better shape than he since I had broken his world record for two miles. Did I know that for a fact? No but I was training as hard as my body could take and I had to believe my training was better than his. My twenty times 400 meters with 120 interval (sixty walk and sixty jog on a cinder track) three in 60 seconds and each fourth in 58 with the twentieth one in :54 was much better than I had run under Igloi. (I had done twelve in :62 to :63 with 200 walk between. I believed at the time that no-one else in the world could do the workout. (Yes, I was assuming)
It is true I never did a long run and my intervals were 400 meters or less. However I did most of the work on grass and could and would run 300 meters in a straight line and many times I only took a fifteen or twenty yard walk between. No I was not running all-out but at times they were in :65 400 meter pace. relaxed for me at the time. In many respects it was like taking a long run as my heart rate did not fall during the walk.
I never did anything all-out but would run ten 200 meters in :24 with a 50 meter walk. I was working out twice a day. Most of the time at 5:30 in the morning and 5:30 in the evening. Yes, in the mornings it was interval of 100, 150, and 200 meters and throughout the summer I was doing 72 of those. Again most of the time they were on grass.
No, I did not know about lactic threshhold or how the muscles reacted. I tried to increase my workouts and therefore stress on my body as it became accustomed to what I had been doing.
I will answer any questions anyone may have.
Bob, thanks for your willingness to share information. I have 3 questions:
1) You mentioned that your training was never all out. How difficult for you were your typical workouts?
2) Did you periodize your training in any way by keeping things easier and higher volume at some times of the year and then decreasing volume and moving to higher intensity during other time?
3) What was your best 800m? Your 10 x 200 suggests it could have been well under 1:50.
Wow!
Mr.Schul, thanks so much for offering your insight here!
Can you tell us, how did it come to pass that your approach to training has not been more widely adopted by American distance running?
Are we running too many slow miles?
Thanks so much!
Runningart2004 wrote:
The article even states that it doesn't apply to cross-country and long distance running only to sports which require short bursts of speed, not sustained distance running.
1. Is there a place for 30 second sprints with long rests and other anaerobic work? YES, probably more so than most runners realize. Never lose sight of speed as speed effects everything.
2. Should we do away with sustained aerobic running? NO. There are adaptations that occur with sustained aerobic running that do not occur otherwise. Also, if short sprint training and just running fast everyday was the way to go then our training wouldn't have remained in the 1880s,
As an athlete who is a distance runner you really have two fitness levels to worry about:
1. General Running Fitness: What's the quickest way to get into shape? Sprints. Go to the track. Sprint the straights, jog the curves. This is the part of training most people forget about. You should do something for this anaerobic speed every single week of the year. Why? Because it teaches your body the fundamental basics of how to run effeciently. When most people start a running program they just try to run longer everyday. Your first run from an extended break should include sprints. This is make further runs easier. General Running Fitness would include base mileage, short sprints, hill repeats, and fast continuous runs.
2. Specific Running Fitness: Most of us do this very well. Most interval training, tempo runs, etc. This is running with a race based goal. In order for the specific running to be successful you need to have some general fitness behind it.
Go back to what Lydiard advised. He was big on incorporating short sprints year round. Go :15 on, 1:00 off. Full rest.
The big problem with current training theory is that it barely touches on resistance training. Every other sport on the face of the planet sees resistance training as key, yet running is still stuck in the 20th Century.
Why do you think that Torres chick could swim fast and keep up with those kids in the pool at age 40. Look at her body. That is the body of a woman who does some serious resistance training. Swimming and distance running have been held back by coaches stuck in the 20th Century.
Alan
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Phoenix:
The hard training was three days a week although at times I would throw in another hard day. Monday and Tuesday were hard with an easier day on Wed. Medium on Thursday, easier on Friday and hard on Saturday. Sundays were medium although that was normally the day I ran the 20 x 400's so Saturday became easier in that case.
My theory was to work the body the same throughout the year going from one plateau to another as the body progressed. Only the mind becomes tired as far as I am concerned and you can continue to push the body but not hard enough to injury it. I did have injuries but most came about in competition.
I ran 1:51 in 1961 but thought I would have been able to run in the high 1:47's to low 1:48's. After I retired, I wished I had run 800, 10K and even the marathon. I did run 33:53 in a 10K on the roads when I was fifty and was doing about 40 to 45 miles a week.
In the 440 I ran :50 out of the blocks in 1957 and ran 48.8 in a 4 x 400 relay leg in 1958.
Disciple:
I have used my training based on the Igloi method for forty years and have had success. I have posted some of those people on my web site at bobschul.net
to do interval training using my method is time consuming and many runners would rather run ten miles on a tempo run and spend an hour doing it than spend an hour and a half or more doing a similar distance of interval work. My theory is to keep the heart rate high for as long as possible, over 70% of max, and you can do that through my type of intervals.
You should know I do have my runners run long tempo runs as it has been proven they are useful. When I trained Eamonn O'Reilly in 1968 he ran nine miles almost every morning and did intervals four days a week in the afternoon with long runs at different tempos on the other days.
I consider slow long miles a waste unless the heart rate is high enough to place stress on the system so it must grow.
"I consider slow long miles a waste unless the heart rate is high enough to place stress on the system so it must grow"
Even for recovery purposes?
I believe LSD has it's place in a balanced programme.
Bob Schul wrote:
The hard training was three days a week although at times I would throw in another hard day. Monday and Tuesday were hard with an easier day on Wed. Medium on Thursday, easier on Friday and hard on Saturday. Sundays were medium although that was normally the day I ran the 20 x 400's so Saturday became easier in that case.
After I retired, I wished I had run 800, 10K and even the marathon.
Mr. Schul,
what adjustments within your training routine would you adopt for marathon training?
Bump
But recovery shouldn't be that long, should it?
fidelc wrote:
"I consider slow long miles a waste unless the heart rate is high enough to place stress on the system so it must grow"
Even for recovery purposes?
I believe LSD has it's place in a balanced programme.
Thanks, Mr. Schul, for participating in this thread. It's always best to hear from the source rather than through the words of others.
I think it's important that people look at your training in it's entirety and not just focus on a singular aspect of it, which is where much of the misconception come from.
spaniel wrote:
wellnow wrote:Andy, I think you are somewhat confused about redox reactions, which involve electron transfer from one molecule to another.
Oxidation of lactate to pyruvate involves transfer of electrons changing the oxidation state not extra oxygen uptake.
Just what do you think is the end sink of those extra electrons? OXYGEN.
Seriously...how can you keep putting yourself in these discussions when your understanding of basic biochem is so lacking? Give up.
There are two ways to regenerate NAD+. One does not need oxygen. This is the conversion of pyruvate to lactate. The other requires oxygen; this is the regneration of NAD+ through mitochondrial electron transport, which generates ATP and passes the electrons to oxygen.
It really does not matter whether lactate is used as a fuel for endurance events or not. It still requires the consumption of oxygen, and therefore aerobic conditioning.
Your assertion that it only takes a few weeks to maximize aerobic conditioning is unsupported and laughable. Look at the heart and left ventricular output of a runner who has only been training for 8 weeks and one who has been training for years. If you were right, they would be the same. But they are not.
I never made any such claim about untrained runners. I said well trained runners only need a maximum of a few weeks to maximise aerobic capacity.
Now when you talk about oxidation in cytosolic redox reactions, that is not the same as oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondria. The former doesn't require extra oxygen uptake, the latter does.
a watcher wrote:
now that is so very convenient isn't it :)
still please post or send your email so i can prove you arent Mr Orange yourself
Trail Master isn't Mr Orange, I am. I have only posted on this thread under one name.
http://www.athleticsdata.com/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=3727Mr. Ray wrote:
But recovery shouldn't be that long, should it?
fidelc wrote:"I consider slow long miles a waste unless the heart rate is high enough to place stress on the system so it must grow"
Even for recovery purposes?
I believe LSD has it's place in a balanced programme.
It can be. Why not? You can practice technique at slow paces also.
Mr. Ray wrote: Are you saying that winning in races just boils down to having enough NAD's?
Ahahahahaha....! :-)
Nads.... sn*****, sn*****, he said NADs!
Disciple,
First I have trained marathoners and have had two pretty good athletes. The first was Wally Saeger who ran 2:13 plus in 1984. He ran in the mid 8:50's for two miles in college at Wisconsin. The other was Eamonn O'Reilly wo ran 2:16 in 1968, in his first marathon and led from the beginning to end with no one else around him. That was the fastest time ever run in the Americas. Eamonn went on to run 2:11 plus at Boston in 1971. Only because of injury did he not win a medal in the Olympics.
Both did long runs in the morning and I still have my athletes do that if they want to be good. the distance is determined by the ability of the athlete and how he or she has progressed.
I talked about having three days a week of interval training for marathoners in the p.m. with the other days reserved for long runs.
For all the athletes I have had I haven't gone over eighteen miles in training and they work up to that distance from ten miles with two mile increases after they have completed three weeks of a given distance. After three eighteen mile runs in the third, fourth, and fifth weekend before their marathon they have two weekends of eight miles and then the race.
Bob Schul wrote:
Eamonn went on to run 2:11 plus at Boston in 1971. Only because of injury did he not win a medal in the Olympics.
Actually, that was in 1970. Alvaro Mejia won in 1971 in a very slow time--2:18.
Did you have marathoners doing the same sorts of intervals as your track guys did and if not what sorts of adjustments did you make? I seem to recall Eamon writing something in the old "Running" magazine about interval work as applied to marathons but can't recall exactly what it was and am not sure where the issue is now. And did Igloi or Tabori ever coach any notable marathon runners?
I guess everyone has different viewpoints, but my recovery runs are short and slow, and my long runs are a little faster and long.For me, the main purpose of recovery is recovery, and the main purpose of long runs is to develop endurance.
Mr. Ray wrote:
But recovery shouldn't be that long, should it?
wellnow wrote:
It can be. Why not? You can practice technique at slow paces also.